Dear Joseph et al., I'm afraid I can't comment on the adequacy Husserlian phenomenology, as I never could get very far into Hursserl. I would just add that there is also a variety of phenomenology associated with thermodynamics and engineering.
The generic meaning of phenomenology is the study of phenomena in abstraction of their eliciting causes. This applies to almost all of classical thermodynamics and much of engineering. The idea is to describe the behavior of systems in quantitative fashion. If the resulting mathematical description proves reliable, it becomes a phenomenological description. PV=nRT is such a description. Too often physicists try to identify thermodynamics with statistical mechanics, an action that is vigorously eschewed by engineers, who claim the field as their own. I have spent most of my career with the phenomenology of quantified networks, where phenomena such as intersubjectivity (if I correctly understand what is meant by the term) thoroughly pervades events. Of course, I'm feathering my own nest when I say that I believe that the only *current* fruitful way to approach systems biology is via such phenomenology! (See Section 3 in <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Reckon.pdf>.) The best, Bob > Dear Mark, > > Thank you for this note, which points correctly to the fact that there was > something missing in the debate. Intersubjectivity is a good word for it, > but phenomenology in general is probably no longer the answer, if it ever > was. Check out the new book by Tom Sparrow, The End of Phenomenology, > Edinburgh, 2014; Sparrow is a key player in a new 'movement' called > Speculative Realism which is proposed as a replacement. > > What does this have to do with information? I think a great deal and worth > a new debate, even in extremis. The problem with Husserlian phenomenology > is that it fails to deliver an adequate picture of reality, but > speculative realism is too anti-scientific to do any better. What I think > is possible, however, is to reconcile the key insights of Heidegger with > science, especially, with information science. This places information > science in a proper intersubjective context where its utility can be seen. > For discussion, I hope. > > Best, > > Joseph _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
